The Florida Senate COMMITTEE MEETING EXPANDED...

S-036 (10/2008) 12062010.1456 of 1

2011 Regular Session The Florida Senate

COMMITTEE MEETING EXPANDED AGENDA

REAPPORTIONMENT

Senator Gaetz, Chair

Senator Margolis, Vice Chair

MEETING DATE: Thursday, December 9, 2010

TIME: 10:45 a.m.—12:45 p.m. PLACE: Pat Thomas Committee Room, 412 Knott Building

MEMBERS: Senator Gaetz, Chair; Senator Margolis, Vice Chair; Senators Benacquisto, Bullard, Dean, Detert, Diaz de la Portilla, Evers, Fasano, Flores, Garcia, Gardiner, Hays, Latvala, Lynn, Montford, Negron, Rich, Sachs, Siplin, Sobel, Storms, and Thrasher

TAB BILL NO. and INTRODUCER BILL DESCRIPTION and

SENATE COMMITTEE ACTIONS COMMITTEE ACTION

1

Timeline for redistricting in 2011-2012.

2

Introduction to redistricting law.

3

Introduction to redistricting technology.

Timeline for redistricting in

2011-2012

The Florida Senate

Committee on Reapportionment

December 9, 2010

Cornerstone of representative

democracy…

• Elections are the cornerstone of a

representative democracy.

• Redistricting ensures that citizens have:

• Equal representation in the U.S. House

of Representatives, state senate, and

state house;

• Equal opportunity to elect

representatives they choose.

Census Day: April 1, 2010

• U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 2,

establishes that apportionment of the

House of Representatives based on a

national census. First census in 1790.

U.S. Population

3.9

281.4

0

50

100

150

200

250

3001790

1800

1810

1820

1830

1840

1850

1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

Mil

lio

ns

Number of

U.S. Representatives

65

105

142

182213

240

223234

241292

325356

386

435

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1789

1793

1803

1813

1823

1833

1843

1853

1863

1873

1883

1893

1903

1913

1923

1933

1943

1953

1963

1973

1983

1993

2003

2013

Reapportionment…

• “Apportionment” or

“reapportionment” refers

to the allocation of seats

among units, such as the

allocation of congressional

seats among the states or

legislative seats among

counties.

• Method Equal Proportions.

Florida delegation in

U.S. House of Representatives

1 1 12 2 2

34 4

56

8

12

15

19

2325

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

New York delegation in


6

10

17

27

34

40

34 3331

33 34 3437

43 4345 45

4341

39

3431

29

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1789

1793

1803

1813

1823

1833

1843

1853

1863

1873

1883

1893

1903

1913

1923

1933

1943

1953

1963

1973

1983

1993

2003

Redistricting…

• The U.S. Constitution requires states to

periodically redraw electoral districts to

account for population shifts.

• “Redistricting” is the process of adjusting

electoral district boundaries, usually in

response to census results.

• District boundaries determine which voters

can take part in electing a representative.

Florida’s growth not uniform• Different areas experience different rates

of population growth.

• Areas that grow faster than the state

average entitled to more representation.

• Conversely, areas that grow slower than

the state average lose representation.

• Even where a district’s population grows at

same rate as state average, district

boundaries may change.

Florida

Congressional

Districts

2002-2012

Florida

Senatorial

Districts

2002-2012

Florida

House

Districts

2002-2012

Population per district in Florida…

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Congress Senate House

562,5

19

323,4

48

107,8

16

639,2

95

399,5

59

133,1

86

699,3

13

472,0

36

157,3

45

1992

2002

2012

* Assumptions: 2010 population of 18.9 million; 27 congressional districts

APRIL2010

DECEMBER2010

JANUARY2011

FEBRUARY2011

MARCH2011

APRIL2011

MAY2011

JUNE2011

JULY2011

AUGUST2011

SEPTEMBER2011

OCTOBER2011

NOVEMBER2011

DECEMBER2011

JANUARY2012

FEBRUARY2012

MARCH2012

APRIL2012

MAY2012

JUNE2012

JULY2012

AUGUST2012

SEPTEMBER2012

OCTOBER2012

NOVEMBER2012

DECEMBER2012

April 1, 2010U.S. Census

TIGER datapublished

Census P.L. 94-171population counts

published

District Builder BETAonline

District Builderversion 1 online

District Explorerversion 2 online

District Builderversion 2 online

December 31, 2010Congressional Apportionment

Statewide Public Hearings

Regular Session Supreme CourtReview Section 5 Preclearance Review

Within 15 daysAttorney Generalpetitions Florida Supreme Courtfor declaratory

statement

Regular Session Convenes

January 10

July 13, 2012Mail overseas ballots

September 21, 2012Mail overseas ballots

August 28, 2012Primary Election

June 18 - 22, 2012Qualifying for federal

and state of�ces.New districts take

effect if no objectioninterposed within 60 days

New districtstake effect ifno objectioninterposed

within 60 days

November 6, 2012General Election

Within 30 daysafter petition

Supreme Courtenters judgement

Reapportionment Timeline 2011

Reapportionment Timeline 2012

Interim Committee Meetings

Timeline:

2010 Census

• April 1, 2010 – U.S. Census

• December 31, 2010 – Apportionment of


Spring 2011

Build databases & software

• April 1, 2011 – Redistricting data (see,

http://www.census.gov/rdo/)

• June 2011 – SF1 data (sex, age, group

quarters)

• June 2011 – District Builder online for

Senators and public

Summer & fall 2011

Interim Meetings

• Precedents:

• Public hearings during summer and fall

of 2011 (see, http://www.flsenate.gov/

senateredistricting/archives.cfm)

• Interim Committee meetings starting in

September 2011.

January 10, 2012

Regular session convenes

• The regular session in 2012 convenes 8

weeks earlier than normal (January 10,

2012; see, Ch. 2010-91, Laws of Florida).*

* Precedents: January 14, 1992, and January 22, 2002

Spring 2012

Legal reviews

• Florida Supreme Court

• Within 15 days, Attorney General

petitions for declaratory judgment.

• Within 30 days thereafter, Supreme

Court enters its judgment.

• Section 5 preclearance.

• Department of Justice issues

determination with 60 days.

Flow chart (see, Fla. Const. art. III, § 16)…Within 30 days, governor

reconvenes legislature in 30-day

special apportionment session.

Within 15 days, Attorney General

petitions the Supreme Court to

determine the validity of plan(s).Within 5 days, governor

reconvenes legislature in

15-day extraordinary

apportionment session.

Within 15 days, Attorney General

petitions the Supreme Court to

determine the validity of plan(s).

Within 60 days of petition, Supreme

Court makes apportionment.

Attorney General petitions Supreme

Court to apportion legislative districts.

Within 15 days… Within 5 days…

At the

regular session in

the second year following the

decennial census, the legislature shall

adopt a joint resolution apportioning

the state into senate and

house districts.

During

the 30-day

special apportionment

session, the legislature shall adopt

a joint resolution apportioning the

state into senate and

house districts.

During

the 15-day

extraordinary apportionment

session, the legislature shall adopt

a joint resolution conforming

with the

judgment

Joint resolution

adoptedPlan(s)

NOT valid

Plan(s) valid

Joint resolution

NOT adopted

Within

30 days,

Supreme Court

enters its

judgment

Within

30 days,

Supreme Court

enters its

judgmentJoint resolution takes effect. Within 60 days of petition, Supreme

Court makes apportionment.

Joint resolution

adopted

Joint resolution

NOT adopted

Joint resolution

NOT adopted

Joint resolution

adopted

Plan(s)

NOT valid

Plan(s) valid

June 18-22, 2012

Qualifying

• Plans must be enacted, approved, and

precleared prior to qualifying dates for

federal or state office (June 18-22, 2012;

see, FLA. STAT. § 99.061(1) and (9)).

January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31 26 27 28 29 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30

May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012


1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 31 1

September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012


2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 30 31

Federal & state qualifying

White on green = Mail overseas ballots; White on blue = Election day.

By Andy Bardos

Redistricting In 2011, the United States Census Bureau will release

population data from the 2010 Census.

Changes in population and residency patterns will require the Legislature to redraw districts.

Florida is likely to gain one or two congressional districts.

Districts that gained population will shrink, while districts that lost population will grow in size.

Constitutional Authority The Legislature draws congressional districts pursuant

to Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution: “The . . . Manner of holding Elections for . . . Representatives,

shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof . . . .”

The Legislature draws state legislative districts pursuant to Article III, Section 16 of the Florida Constitution:

“The Legislature . . . shall apportion the state . . . into not less than thirty nor more than forty consecutively numbered senatorial districts . . . and into not less than eighty nor more than one hundred twenty consecutively numbered representative districts . . . .”

Procedure Congressional redistricting plans:

Gubernatorial veto

No automatic judicial review

State legislative redistricting plans:

Passed by joint resolution

No gubernatorial veto

Automatic review by the Florida Supreme Court

Concepts and Definitions

Reapportionment: the allocation of congressional seats among the several states.

Redistricting: the creation of new district boundaries.

Single-Member District: a district that elects one member.

Multi-Member District: a district that elects more than one member.

Concepts and Definitions Traditional Redistricting Principles

Contiguity

Compactness

Respect for Local Boundaries

Respect for Communities of Interest

Preservation of the Cores of Existing Districts

Concepts and Definitions Ideal Population: the average district population

(determined by dividing the statewide population by the number of districts)

Overall Range: the variance between the most populous and least populous districts (determined by dividing the difference between their populations by the ideal population)

Voting-Age Population (VAP): the population that has attained eighteen years of age

Concepts and Definitions Majority-Minority District: a district in which a minority

group comprises a majority of the population

Access District (a.k.a. Influence District): a district in which a minority group, though not a majority, plays a substantial role in the electoral process

Coalition District: a district in which a minority group, though not a majority, is able to elect its candidate of choice with the concurring votes of another minority group

Crossover District: a district in which a minority group is not a majority, but is usually able to elect its preferred candidate with concurring votes of white voters

United States Constitution

One Person, One Vote

Racial Gerrymandering

Partisan Gerrymandering

One Person, One Vote To ensure an equally weighted vote, districts must

consist of populations as nearly equal as practicable.

Congressional districts must achieve precise mathematical equality, with two exceptions:

1. Exact equality is impossible despite a good-faith effort.

• With new technology, this exception is nearly obsolete.

• In Florida:

• 3 congressional districts have populations of 639,296.

• 22 congressional districts have populations of 639,295.

One Person, One Vote2. Small variances are necessary to achieve some

legitimate, consistently applied state objective

• State objectives recognized as legitimate:

• Compactness

• Respect for Municipal Boundaries

• Preservation of the Cores of Existing Districts

• Courts will consider:

• The Size of the Deviation

• The Importance of the State Objective

• The Consistency With Which the Objective Is Pursued

• The Availability of Alternatives

One Person, One Vote• In Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1994), an overall range of

0.35 percent was upheld chiefly in deference to the state’s unique interest in respect for county boundaries.

• In West Virginia Civil Liberties Union v. Rockefeller, 336 F. Supp. 2d 395 (S.D. W. Va. 1972), an overall range of 0.78 percent was upheld in light of the state’s requirement that districts be compact.

• But in Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983), an overall range of 0.69 percent (3,674 people) was not justified by a legitimate state objective.

One Person, One Vote State legislative districts need not achieve precise

mathematical equality, but only substantial equality

Reasonable variances that result from a rational state policy (such as contiguity, compactness, or respect for the boundaries of political subdivisions) may be upheld

An overall range of less than 10 percent is constitutional absent proof of arbitrariness or discrimination

In Larios v. Cox, 300 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (N.D. Ga. 2004), an overall range of 9.98 percent was invalid because deviations were designed to benefit one party and some incumbents

One Person, One Vote An overall range of more than 10 percent was:

Upheld in Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973), where an overall range of 16.4 percent was the smallest possible consistent with respect for local boundaries.

Invalid in Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407 (1977), where overall ranges of 16.5 and 19.3 percent were greater than necessary to ensure adherence to local boundaries.

2002 House Districts 2002 Senate Districts

Ideal Population 133,186 399,559

Most Populous District 135,043 399,606

Least Populous District 131,310 399,488

Overall Range 2.79 percent 0.03 percent

Racial Gerrymandering Equal Protection ensures that, absent justification,

government will treat similarly situated people equally.

The courts are especially intolerant of differential treatment based on race.

If race is the “predominant motive” and traditional, race-neutral principles are subordinated to race, the district will be subject to strict scrutiny.

Motive can be proven by:

Direct evidence of legislative purpose, or

Circumstantial evidence (district shape and demographics).

Racial Gerrymandering A district motivated predominantly by race must be

narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest.

Two interests have been recognized as possibly compelling:

1. Eradication of the effects of racial discrimination.

The discrimination must be identified with specificity.

There must be a strong basis in evidence that remedial action is necessary.

2. Compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the “VRA”).

The Supreme Court has assumed—but has never decided—that compliance with the VRA is a compelling interest.

If it is, the district must be reasonably necessary under a constitutional reading and application of the VRA.

Partisan Gerrymandering In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that maps

drawn to secure a partisan advantage are subject to challenge under the Equal Protection Clause.

The Court, however, has never announced a standard by which such claims can be resolved.

In 2004, four Justices found no “judicially discoverable or manageable standards” for partisan gerrymandering claims, and opined that courts should not hear them.

Federal Statutes

Section 2 of the VRA. 42 U.S.C. § 1973.

Section 5 of the VRA. 42 U.S.C. § 1973c.

No Multi-Member Congressional Districts. 2 U.S.C. § 2c.

The Voting Rights Act The VRA was enacted in 1965 to combat

discriminatory practices in voting and elections and to enhance minority registration and participation.

Section 2

Permanent

Applies nationwide

Section 5

Temporary

Applies to “covered jurisdictions”

Section 2 of the VRA

• Section 2 was designed to protect minority voters from practices that

improperly weaken, or “dilute,” minority voting strength.

Cracking: the division of a compact minority population into various districts so that it forms a majority in none

Packing: the over-concentration of minority voters into a small number of districts, limiting minority voting strength

Example Minority VAP

District 1 20%

District 2 20%

District 3 20%

Example Minority VAP

District 1 90%

District 2 30%

Section 2 of the VRA Section 2 protects any group of minority voters:

1. That meets all “Gingles” preconditions:

A. It is geographically compact.

B. It is politically cohesive.

C. It is sufficiently numerous to form the majority of a district.

D. Its candidates are usually defeated by a bloc-voting majority.

2. And whose members, in the totality of circumstances, have less opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice.

Section 2 of the VRA Section 2 requires the creation of single-member

districts in which the protected minority group has an “effective voting majority.”

Notable cases:

Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986): announced the legal standard on the previous slide.

Bartlett v. Strickland, 129 S. Ct. 1231 (2009): concluded that Section 2 does not protect minority groups that are too small to comprise a numerical majority in a single-member district.

Section 5 of the VRA Section 5 prohibits all changes in voting procedures that:

1. Worsen the position of racial minorities; or

2. Were enacted with a discriminatory purpose.

Covered Jurisdictions: Section 5 applies only to particular jurisdictions designated by the U.S. Department of Justice.

In Florida, Section 5 applies to Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough, and Monroe Counties.

Preclearance: Before any change in voting procedures may be enforced in a covered jurisdiction, it must be approved by a federal District Court or the Department of Justice.

Section 5 of the VRA How is retrogression measured?

In Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003), the Court permitted states to balance various considerations:

The strength and number of safe minority districts.

The strength and number of minority influence districts.

The protection of minority incumbents.

The support or opposition of minority leaders.

In 2006, Congress amended Section 5 to overrule Ashcroft.

Now, the focus of Section 5 is performing districts—districts in which minorities have the ability to elect their preferred candidates.

Other considerations can no longer compensate for a reduction in the number of performing districts within a covered jurisdiction.

Section 5 of the VRA Several Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have

expressed “serious misgivings” about the constitutionality of Section 5. Northwest Austin Mun. Util. Dist. v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 2504 (2009).

Federal interference

Unequal treatment of states

Outdated selection of covered jurisdictions

Two challenges to the constitutionality of Section 5 are pending in federal District Court.

Florida Constitution

State Legislative Redistricting:

Article III, Section 16

Article III, Section 21 (Amendment 5)

Congressional Redistricting:

Article III, Section 20 (Amendment 6)

Article III, Section 16 State legislative districts must be contiguous.

The territory of a district may not be separated by the territory of another district—but it may be separated by a body of water.

Senate District 27, which is separated by Lake Okeechobee, was upheld in 2002:

Article III, Section 16 Florida House: 80 and 120 districts.

Florida Senate: 30 and 40 districts.

State legislative districts:

Must be consecutively numbered.

May overlap or even consist of identical territory.

Florida has not created multi-member districts since 1972.

Amendments 5 and 6

Voters adopted Amendments 5 and 6.

Amendments 5 and 6 create two tiers of standards.

When in conflict, first-tier standards supplant second-tier standards.

Within each tier, standards are assigned no order of priority.

Amendments 5 and 6 First-Tier Standards:

Incumbents

No district shall be drawn with the intent to favor an incumbent.

No district shall be drawn with the intent to disfavor an incumbent.

No apportionment plan shall be drawn with the intent to favor an incumbent.

No apportionment plan shall be drawn with the intent to disfavor an incumbent.

Political Parties

No district shall be drawn with the intent to favor a political party.

No district shall be drawn with the intent to disfavor a political party.

No apportionment plan shall be drawn with the intent to favor a political party.

No apportionment plan shall be drawn with the intent to disfavor a political party.

Amendments 5 and 6 Racial Minorities

Districts shall not be drawn with the intent of denying the equal opportunity of racial minorities to participate in the political process.

Districts shall not be drawn with the intent of abridging the equal opportunity of racial minorities to participate in the political process.

Districts shall not be drawn with the result of denying the equal opportunity of racial minorities to participate in the political process.

Districts shall not be drawn with the result of abridging the equal opportunity of racial minorities to participate in the political process.

Districts shall not be drawn to diminish the ability of racial minorities to elect representatives of their choice.

Amendments 5 and 6 Language Minorities

Districts shall not be drawn with the intent of denying the equal opportunity of language minorities to participate in the political process.

Districts shall not be drawn with the intent of abridging the equal opportunity of language minorities to participate in the political process.

Districts shall not be drawn with the result of denying the equal opportunity of language minorities to participate in the political process.

Districts shall not be drawn with the result of abridging the equal opportunity of language minorities to participate in the political process.

Districts shall not be drawn to diminish the ability of language minorities to elect representatives of their choice.

Contiguous Territory

Amendments 5 and 6

Second-Tier Standards

Districts shall:

Be as nearly equal in population as practicable.

Be compact.

Where feasible, utilize existing political and geographical boundaries.

Public Records Act

“The following public records are exempt from inspection and copying: . . . A draft, and a request for a draft, of a reapportionment plan or redistricting plan and an amendment thereto. Any supporting documents associated with such plan or amendment until a bill implementing the plan, or the amendment, is filed.” § 11.0431(2)(e), Fla. Stat. (2010).

Introduction to

Redistricting Technology

The Florida Senate

Committee on Reapportionment

December 9, 2010

Technology deliverables

• Applications.

• Building districts.

• Processing plans.

• Viewing/comparing plans.

• Data.

• Show information about areas…[e.g., value ramps, data labels, identify tool]

• “Real time” information about districts as they are built.

• Detailed information about proposed plans.[e.g.,252 distinct population categories versus 5 in FREDS.]

Technology will be used to…

• Model districts.

• Evaluate districts.

• Challenge districts.

• Defend districts.

1980s : Adding machines and

hand-drawn maps

1990s: A New Paradigm

• Map and statistical data integrated into a

single GIS interface.

• Cutting edge technology.

2000: Better, cheaper, faster

• Decentralized deployment.

• Focus on speed and cost.

• Lower cost of entry, broad

participation.

• Software distributed to

schools and libraries.

Electronic mapping now is

commonplace

• Web applications like Google Maps and

Bing.

• GPS devices.

• Elevated public expectations.

Data sets are huge and

dynamic

• P.L. 94-171.

• SF1.

• American Communities Survey.

• Registered voters by address.

• Election results by precinct.

2010: Google Map-like Web app

• Lowest cost of entry.

• Public access to rich

data and ability to

model districts with

standard Internet

browsers.

• www.flsenate.gov.

Requirements…

• Broad public participation, minimal training,

focused functionality, and intuitive interface.

• Easy to deploy, scale, and patch.

• Easy to update data.

• Works with multiple clients (PCs and Macs).

• “Simplest thing that can possibly work.”

Keep it simple…

• Perfection is achieved, not when there is

nothing more to add, but when there is

nothing left to take away.

Antoine de Saint Exupéry

Evaluate alternatives…

• Purchase COTS (commercial off-the-shelf).

• Reuse FREDS 2000 (VB/MapObjects).

• Recode FREDS 2000 in ArcObjects.

• Develop open source desktop application.

• Develop ArcIMS/database web application.

• Develop ArcGIS Server web application.

• Develop open source web application.

Web app advantages

• Best for public accessibility.

• Best for transparency.

• Best for delivering vast amounts of

demographic data.

• Best for data updates and patches.

• Best for supporting multiple clients.

Web app challenges

• Security.

• Scalability and performance.

• User training and support.

Open source advantages

• Free.

• Unlimited deployments.

• No license manager.

• Simple technology.

• Good developer community support.

• Third-party support available.

Open source challenges

• Support not included with software.

• Limited documentation, samples, and

examples.

• Much smaller developer base.

• No customer support.

Evolution of District Builder

• District

Browser

Evolution of District Builder

• District

Explorer

version 1

Simple interface…

Simple reports…

Simple maps…

Exports: Assignment files

1,14

5136,3

6216,4

6217,4

6218,4

6219,4

6220,4

6221,4

6224,4

6225,4

6226,4

…

One record for each unit of

geography (compressed)

120310001001000 1

120310001001001 1

120310001001002 1

120310001001003 1

120310001001004 1

120310001001005 1

120310001001006 1

120310001001007 1

120310001001008 1

120310001001009 1

120310001001010 1

…

One record for each

Census block

Exports: Bill Language

Section 2. Division of state into congressional districts.—The state is

divided into 26 congressional districts, the same to be serially numbered, to be

designated by such numbers. . . .

(2) District 2 is composed of:

(a) That part of Bay County made up of tract(s) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,

12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22; of tract 23 block(s) 101, 102, 103,

104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118,

119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133,

201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218,

301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320,

321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335,

336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350,

351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366,

367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381,

382, 399, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408. . . .

Processing plans…

• When a Senator submits a redistricting plan

for public review, an automatic process will

generate bill language, maps, statistics,

DOJ export, and District Builder export.

• Documents will be published on

www.flsenate.gov.

• Plans will be accessible in District Builder

and District Explorer.

Public access…

• User accounts required for District Builder.

Anyone can register for a secure account.

• Sign-on not required for District Explorer;

Version 2 (late fall 2011) will deliver:

• Granular demographic data;

• Interactive access to proposed plans, and

• Easy access to PDF maps and reports for

all submitted plans.

New features and data…

• Version 2 of District Builder and District

Explorer will deliver additional features

and data.

• As new datasets become available, they

will be delivered to Senators and the

public through District Builder, District

Explorer, and www.flsenate.gov.

Deployment schedule…

• District Builder BETA will launch during the

week of February 7, 2011.

• District Builder version 1 will launch in

June 2011.

• District Builder version 2 will launch in late

fall 2011.

• District Explorer version 2 will launch in

late fall 2011.

Technology changes, but the

task remains the same

+ =

The Florida Senate COMMITTEE MEETING EXPANDED...

Documents

Transcript of The Florida Senate COMMITTEE MEETING EXPANDED...